Lucky gunner's 10,000 round test of Brass vs steel cased. Good read.

[navyman8903]

Not sure if this has been posted before. I'm on deployment so my internet isn't good or fast. I have to be deliberate with what I do. So I apologize for not searching first. My buddy just sent this article to me.

I really appreciated this article/test. Demonstrates the clear difference between both the quality and wear on the weapons with steel cased ammo.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo/

[thedave1164]

Not sure if this has been posted before. I'm on deployment so my internet isn't good or fast. I have to be deliberate with what I do. So I apologize for not searching first. My buddy just sent this article to me.

I really appreciated this article/test. Demonstrates the clear difference between both the quality and wear on the weapons with steel cased ammo.

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo/

I am surprised at the differences, not that there were, but how much of a difference there really was.

As a rule, I shoot a few hundred rounds of cheap steel cased ammo in my AR's to be sure it will run with it, then the rest is pretty much brass cased new or reloads.

[DpdG]

That's an impressive test and interestingly definitive results. I have to wonder if the round count lifespans would be applicable to a slower firing schedule- I.E. a few hundred rounds at a time, over an hour or so per outing. I have to imagine the thermal factor of LG's test protocol had a negative effect on lifespans. Clearly the protocol was the same for each ammo type, but would a lower pace/temperatures would allow for higher total round count before the barrel were to be shot-out?

[navyman8903]

That's an impressive test and interestingly definitive results. I have to wonder if the round count lifespans would be applicable to a slower firing schedule- I.E. a few hundred rounds at a time, over an hour or so per outing. I have to imagine the thermal factor of LG's test protocol had a negative effect on lifespans. Clearly the protocol was the same for each ammo type, but would a lower pace/temperatures would allow for higher total round count before the barrel were to be shot-out?

I do see what you're saying with that. The metallurgical characteristics wouldn't be different, so I think the wear would be the same. I know heat is a fast killer of firearms, and accelerate the process but as for the slow fire vs fast fire, I bet the damage would still be there.

[orionz06]

It's been discussed a little, not as useful as a test as it could've been.

[navyman8903]

It's been discussed a little, not as useful as a test as it could've been.

How could it have been more useful? I feel like taking all of the data they did was very in-depth. I don't even like/use lucky gunner, so I not holding a candle for them. I thought they did a good job.

[orionz06]

How could it have been more useful? I feel like taking all of the data they did was very in-depth. I don't even like/use lucky gunner, so I not holding a candle for them. I thought they did a good job.

I'd have to search the last thread and a few other forums, it's been a few years since it's come up and I've long since forgotten. Lucky Gunner is fine, Chris Baker is doing TONS of great stuff right now, I just didn't agree with the approach on this particular "evaluation" approach and feel that the conclusions may be a little off.

[navyman8903]

I'd have to search the last thread and a few other forums, it's been a few years since it's come up and I've long since forgotten. Lucky Gunner is fine, Chris Baker is doing TONS of great stuff right now, I just didn't agree with the approach on this particular "evaluation" approach and feel that the conclusions may be a little off.

How are they off? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but you're being pretty ambiguous and not offering any constructive feedback.

[Sigfan26]

How are they off? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but you're being pretty ambiguous and not offering any constructive feedback.

I would have liked to see them use higher quality rifles (Bushmaster QC is hit and miss at best). A Colt 6920 isn't that much more money and has top notch QC.

[orionz06]

How are they off? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but you're being pretty ambiguous and not offering any constructive feedback.

Couldn't tell ya at the moment. I suspect you could find the old thread and browse it for some details. The rest is posted on other forums, I'll need to spend some time searching and refreshing myself on the article as I've written it off.

[navyman8903]

Couldn't tell ya at the moment. I suspect you could find the old thread and browse it for some details. The rest is posted on other forums, I'll need to spend some time searching and refreshing myself on the article as I've written it off.

So you don't have a opinion yourself? The article is right above if you want to review it. I'm not sure what you're getting at still honestly. I'm guessing you shoot a high volume of steel?

[navyman8903]

I would have liked to see them use higher quality rifles (Bushmaster QC is hit and miss at best). A Colt 6920 isn't that much more money and has top notch QC.

I mean sure, but most people are not buying Colt 6920's. Your run of the mill people are buying cheap AR's and cheap ammo. I can't tell you how many friends I have that "won't spend that much money on that rifle with this one will do the exact same thing."

Plus 10K is the expected barrel life for a carbine gas system from most service literature.

[orionz06]

So you don't have a opinion yourself? The article is right above if you want to review it. I'm not sure what you're getting at still honestly. I'm guessing you shoot a high volume of steel?


If you're unhappy with the rate and time I've spent digging up old stuff and refreshing mysold on this in the last 24 hours you could always search yourself. There were threads here, M4C, WEvo, and a few other forums that have many crossover, as well as their Facebook page. They spent a fair amount of time discussing this when it was happening and even recruited shooters to assist them.

In short: Their "test" shows that they can shoot 10,000 rounds from four guns. Firearm quality, metal choices, and rate of fire will greatly influence the wear they showed. Their rof from all of the guns, at times, exceeded the rof from most reasonable carbine classes even. I'd think you could piece the rest together with some effort in the search bar.

[pangloss]

In short: Their "test" shows that they can shoot 10,000 rounds from four guns. Firearm quality, metal choices, and rate of fire will greatly influence the wear they showed. Their rof from all of the guns, at times, exceeded the rof from most reasonable carbine classes even. I'd think you could piece the rest together with some effort in the search bar.

My main memory of the discussion was that rate of fire was much too high and that the test should have been conducted over many range sessions instead of a shooting marathon. I haven't looked at the article in a long time though. I also still happily shoot steel-cased ammo in the rare event that I shoot my ARs.



Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

[orionz06]

My main memory of the discussion was that rate of fire was much too high and that the test should have been conducted over many range sessions instead of a shooting marathon. I haven't looked at the article in a long time though. I also still happily shoot steel-cased ammo in the rare event that I shoot my ARs.


That's the biggest factor, IMHO. A normal firing schedule doesn't result in cook off.


If you treat your AR like a belt fed don't shoot steel case.

[Hambo]

How could it have been more useful?

They could have spent more money on guns and ammo to increase sample size.


In short: Their "test" shows that they can shoot 10,000 rounds from four guns.

And is valid in those four guns. At best it gives an idea of what can/will happen.

[orionz06]

And is valid in those four guns. At best it gives an idea of what can/will happen.

In those four guns at those firing rates, yes.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Alembic]

I read the article and concluded that the savings on steel cased ammo far exceeded the costs of a new barrel. Am I missing another part of the equation?

How would a slower rate of fire increase barrel wear or shortened life span of the rifle or barrel. As well, would not better rifles and barrels also fair better?

Please let me know what I'm missing?

I ask because I took these thoughts and applied them to my Glock 19 training gun. A new barrel is $150 bucks and I save at least $50 per case with Wolf vs. AE. Doesn't an OEM glock barrel have a life span greater than 3,000 rounds?

[DpdG]

As for heat- high temps (they had cool-offs, so they got HOT) wear barrels very quickly. The test schedule likely wasn’t an IV8888 meltdown, but it sounds much closer to that than the way most everyone shoots semi-auto ARs. As for barrel quality, higher quality barrels are likely more abrasion resistant.

[DpdG]

Late edit- “they had cool-offs” should read cook-offs. Thermal initiation of primers takes a lot of heat- enough to cause greatly accelerated wear.

[HCM]

If you're unhappy with the rate and time I've spent digging up old stuff and refreshing mysold on this in the last 24 hours you could always search yourself. There were threads here, M4C, WEvo, and a few other forums that have many crossover, as well as their Facebook page. They spent a fair amount of time discussing this when it was happening and even recruited shooters to assist them.

In short: Their "test" shows that they can shoot 10,000 rounds from four guns. Firearm quality, metal choices, and rate of fire will greatly influence the wear they showed. Their rof from all of the guns, at times, exceeded the rof from most reasonable carbine classes even. I'd think you could piece the rest together with some effort in the search bar.

We were talking about this article back in 2014 in the Keymod vs MLOK thread.

https://pistol-forum.com/archive/index.php/t-14049.html

[HCM]

I mean sure, but most people are not buying Colt 6920's. Your run of the mill people are buying cheap AR's and cheap ammo. I can't tell you how many friends I have that "won't spend that much money on that rifle with this one will do the exact same thing."

Plus 10K is the expected barrel life for a carbine gas system from most service literature.


Your “run of the mill people buying cheap AR’s” are not shooting 10,000 rounds, they aren’t even shooting 1,000 rounds. That costs money. In fact companies like bushmaster / windham are betting on it.

The problem with those cheap AR’s isn’t that they won’t survive the 30 rounds or less a CONUS AR might see actual use, but rather that they cannot hold up to the number of rounds necessary for someone serious about their use to become proficient.

Speaking of, if I recall correctly two of the guns in the Lucky Gunner test had barrels which where loose and not torqued to spec ?

This is intersteing as a year or two ago, Windham released a promo video of two of their assemblers on the production floor which attracted some negative attention. One assembler was using a torque wrench to to torque the barrel nuts to proper spec and the other guy was just winging it. It reminded me of the inmate cooks at the jail “if it looks done, it’s done.” That’s how you get pink chicken, loose bowels and crappy AR’s with loose barrel nuts.

[Casual Friday]

To me there's no real difference in this test and the many other torture tests that get done on youtube and blogs. Small sample sizes in less than realistic environments.

[navyman8903]

To me there's no real difference in this test and the many other torture tests that get done on youtube and blogs. Small sample sizes in less than realistic environments.

I disagree. There were more relevant aspects of performance measured, and more care was put into the test. I see people's point for those who broke it down. I get that it's a cheap rifle, and they shot fast. I see that point. However, I think they did a solid job keeping things standardized as well as anyone here would. I don't see someone buying 4 DD M4's or 4 BCM rifles. They bought 4 rifles that are readily available. I don't think the results will be applicable across every single rifle/barrel out there. But I do believe the test did a solid job showing what prolonged steel use will do to these rifles. I think the results are very easy to understand and the depth of data collected was solid.

That's my opinion on this test. Could they have broken the shooting sessions into 250-300 round range trips? Sure. They could have done a few things differently. Hindsight is 20/20. I think this test was fair, and by no means a melt down video or Tim throwing it at steel targets or trees. I think it's fair to say it graduates above the youtube torture test for views videos.

[Casual Friday]

I disagree. There were more relevant aspects of performance measured, and more care was put into the test. I see people's point for those who broke it down. I get that it's a cheap rifle, and they shot fast. I see that point. However, I think they did a solid job keeping things standardized as well as anyone here would. I don't see someone buying 4 DD M4's or 4 BCM rifles. They bought 4 rifles that are readily available. I don't think the results will be applicable across every single rifle/barrel out there. But I do believe the test did a solid job showing what prolonged steel use will do to these rifles. I think the results are very easy to understand and the depth of data collected was solid.

That's my opinion on this test. Could they have broken the shooting sessions into 250-300 round range trips? Sure. They could have done a few things differently. Hindsight is 20/20. I think this test was fair, and by no means a melt down video or Tim throwing it at steel targets or trees. I think it's fair to say it graduates above the youtube torture test for views videos.

Small sample sizes in less than realistic environments. You haven't changed my mind.

[olstyn]

Call me crazy, but I remember reading it the first time and thinking "Why not just reload? It would save at least as much money as shooting steel case ammo (and probably more), but without the potential negative effects." Of course, that's the perspective of someone who already reloads 9mm and would only need to add .223/5.56 dies + a case trimmer in order to start loading .223. The math would be different for someone who'd have to buy a full reloading setup, but still probably worthwhile long-term.

[orionz06]

I disagree. There were more relevant aspects of performance measured, and more care was put into the test. I see people's point for those who broke it down. I get that it's a cheap rifle, and they shot fast. I see that point. However, I think they did a solid job keeping things standardized as well as anyone here would. I don't see someone buying 4 DD M4's or 4 BCM rifles. They bought 4 rifles that are readily available. I don't think the results will be applicable across every single rifle/barrel out there. But I do believe the test did a solid job showing what prolonged steel use will do to these rifles. I think the results are very easy to understand and the depth of data collected was solid.

That's my opinion on this test. Could they have broken the shooting sessions into 250-300 round range trips? Sure. They could have done a few things differently. Hindsight is 20/20. I think this test was fair, and by no means a melt down video or Tim throwing it at steel targets or trees. I think it's fair to say it graduates above the youtube torture test for views videos.

I'm not sure going slower is a "hindsight is 20/20 thing." Heat kills things pretty damned fast. Treat an AR like a 249 and you'll get that. And being standardized is only great if the rest of your testing closely follows the usage you wish it to represent.

[littlejerry]

As an engineer I look at the test and see useful info. For the given barrel type/spec, I'd expect similar wear for a similar firing schedule. I'm inclined to assume the basic premise of steel jackets create more wear than copper jackets given different barrel specs and different firing rates. I would not assume the delta in barrel life remains the same, or has a linear reltaionship, when you change barrel steel specs, coatings, or firing schedule. But, still, I'd expect the conclusion of steel creates more wear than copper to remain the same. This shouldn't be a huge surprise; this is (one reason)why you commonly see bushings and bearings made from brass, bronze, copper, etc.

These guys made a good effort at running a test and analyzing the result. I won't fault them for that and I value the data they've brought to the discussion. It's not comprehensive but it's still more valuable than 99% of the publicly available "testing" that I can find on the web.

[navyman8903]

I'm not sure going slower is a "hindsight is 20/20 thing." Heat kills things pretty damned fast. Treat an AR like a 249 and you'll get that. And being standardized is only great if the rest of your testing closely follows the usage you wish it to represent.

They didn't use it like a 249. There's once again a difference between melting down a barrel and doing a test. Some classes are 500-750 rounds a day. Over an 8 hour ish period sure. Some require you to bring 2K rounds to a class. Having high volumes of fire isn't out of the realm of possibilities. Now I will grant you 10,000 rounds in a few days is aggressive. There's no two ways about it. But everyone who is criticizing the volume/speed of fire has yet to recommend or agree on a testing protocol with daily round totals, and shooting session limits. Just "Do it slower and do it better." Which doesn't do anything for anyone. That's where my hindsight is 20/20 thing comes from. If you were doing the test, there'd be a massive group of people criticizing how you did it, what you did with it, and why you chose what.

I think they did a good job. Not perfect, but good and provided data after the test.

[orionz06]

They didn't use it like a 249. There's once again a difference between melting down a barrel and doing a test. Some classes are 500-750 rounds a day. Over an 8 hour ish period sure. Some require you to bring 2K rounds to a class. Having high volumes of fire isn't out of the realm of possibilities. Now I will grant you 10,000 rounds in a few days is aggressive. There's no two ways about it. But everyone who is criticizing the volume/speed of fire has yet to recommend or agree on a testing protocol with daily round totals, and shooting session limits. Just "Do it slower and do it better." Which doesn't do anything for anyone. That's where my hindsight is 20/20 thing comes from. If you were doing the test, there'd be a massive group of people criticizing how you did it, what you did with it, and why you chose what.

I think they did a good job. Not perfect, but good and provided data after the test.

I've never seen or heard of a normal carbine class where rounds were cooking off, have you? The only time I've seen cook-off was with multiple mag dumps or suppressed guns with a mag or two less on the same mag dump line. I was unaware I needed to suggest a different course of fire in this discussion...

Since you seem to be bent on it, I would base everything off of temperature in order to compress the timeline of 10k rounds. We know steel will wear faster than brass but we also know that the higher the temp the faster the wear. In order to get a solid basis for temperature guidelines I'd have someone measure the temps during an average carbine class. Get the readings from a few people for each drill, start temp and end temp, and try to keep things within those ranges during the 10k round test. I'd also choose a better gun to start with but also try and throw in a Noveske N4 and perhaps one of the S&W melonited barrels, if those are still produced.

That's not 20/20 though, I'd think that's common knowledge.

My guess would be that the steel case guns wouldn't see keyholing within 10k and the accuracy degradation wouldn't be nearly as bad. I'm basing this off of personal experience with my brass and steel case guns, and that of friends I shoot with who have greater steel case round counts than I do from a few guns. I do know that my steel case N4 barrel has been stellar with Wolf and Brown Bear only. It's been some time since I've A-B'd it with the brass case upper that closely matches.

[navyman8903]

I've never seen or heard of a normal carbine class where rounds were cooking off, have you? The only time I've seen cook-off was with multiple mag dumps or suppressed guns with a mag or two less on the same mag dump line. I was unaware I needed to suggest a different course of fire in this discussion...

Since you seem to be bent on it, I would base everything off of temperature in order to compress the timeline of 10k rounds. We know steel will wear faster than brass but we also know that the higher the temp the faster the wear. In order to get a solid basis for temperature guidelines I'd have someone measure the temps during an average carbine class. Get the readings from a few people for each drill, start temp and end temp, and try to keep things within those ranges during the 10k round test. I'd also choose a better gun to start with but also try and throw in a Noveske N4 and perhaps one of the S&W melonited barrels, if those are still produced.

That's not 20/20 though, I'd think that's common knowledge.

My guess would be that the steel case guns wouldn't see keyholing within 10k and the accuracy degradation wouldn't be nearly as bad. I'm basing this off of personal experience with my brass and steel case guns, and that of friends I shoot with who have greater steel case round counts than I do from a few guns. I do know that my steel case N4 barrel has been stellar with Wolf and Brown Bear only. It's been some time since I've A-B'd it with the brass case upper that closely matches.

It's not that I'm bent on it, complaining about something without a solution gets everyone no where. And I also don't disagree with your suggested change to the testing protocol. But they did it the way they did it with controls in place. I don't think it's something that should be ignored or since it didn't fit a pre designated series of testing protocols the information is useless. Heat is the worst killer of parts in a gun. All of it. Heat kills engines faster, and honestly I can't think of something more catastrophic in regards moving parts or firearms than heat/friction. It will definitely accelerate wear. I'm not disputing that. But again, I don't think this test is out of the realm of an actual scientific test. Maybe outside the realm of practicality, but the data provided and the lessons learned are relevant in my opinion.

[orionz06]

It's not that I'm bent on it, complaining about something without a solution gets everyone no where.
Sure, but this was how long ago?


And I also don't disagree with your suggested change to the testing protocol. But they did it the way they did it with controls in place. I don't think it's something that should be ignored or since it didn't fit a pre designated series of testing protocols the information is useless.
The information is quite useful, just not for a wide range of shooters here. That's the contention. Said changes would bring it closer to applying to us.


Heat is the worst killer of parts in a gun. All of it. Heat kills engines faster, and honestly I can't think of something more catastrophic in regards moving parts or firearms than heat/friction. It will definitely accelerate wear. I'm not disputing that. But again, I don't think this test is out of the realm of an actual scientific test. Maybe outside the realm of practicality, but the data provided and the lessons learned are relevant in my opinion.
How relevant is a big one. If we assume the average P-F shooter will shoot a few cases a year those numbers indicate that the average shooter here would see some pretty severe degradation before the end of their first summer. I don't think that's the case at all though. At the time of the article there were several folks on other forums claiming much higher round counts, on par with the useful life of a barrel seeing brass only. Care is needed to keep an eye on the extractor but even then the steel case is rather soft (for steel).

[navyman8903]

How relevant is a big one. If we assume the average P-F shooter will shoot a few cases a year those numbers indicate that the average shooter here would see some pretty severe degradation before the end of their first summer. I don't think that's the case at all though. At the time of the article there were several folks on other forums claiming much higher round counts, on par with the useful life of a barrel seeing brass only. Care is needed to keep an eye on the extractor but even then the steel case is rather soft (for steel).

I think if you had started with this we wouldn't have beat around the bush so much. I also don't disagree with what you're saying here. And I think with this test in the history books, any further testing would require what you're suggesting, which I think is completely warranted. I also think both can exist simultaneously. I also think we can agree that doing mag dump after mag dump will also cause advanced wear on your rifle like is indicated in the lucky gunner test.

That's my point. It's not a universally applicable test, and it isn't a one size fits all test. But it's good info nonetheless. That's what I'm getting at. I'd be just as interested to see a test you're describing as I was to read the results of this test.